'Admit You're Uncomfortable Around Black People' and other nonsense

[Treehugger]

I don't understand how "whiteness scholar" is a serious thing.

I am not in critical whiteness studies and used to have a similar reaction to the term. But once you read the works of Charles W. Mills, Cedric Robinson, bell hooks, Franz Fanon, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva or many others who have written seriously about these issues, you might find that their perspectives are not as simplistic or unproductive as you imagine but rather important considerations toward a more equitable society. 

Ok, I'll take a look. If you had to choose one of these scholars, which one would you recommend? Is it possible that they pre-date the whole critical race theory movement? I remember Franz Fanon as not being a recent scholar. I'm completely unfamiliar with the others.

[marshwiggle]

I don't understand how "whiteness scholar" is a serious thing. Surely none of these behaviors or phenomena are unique to a racial context.

If "whiteness" is such a thing, then the Scandanavian countries should be the epicentre of racism, since that's where the whitest people are.

(And of course, you have to cherry pick history, because the various dominant civilations would mostly not be considered "white"; e.g. the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Egyptians, Mongols, Chinese.... And there's also the wide spread of slavery in different countries, so that black slaves were not by any means universal, (and the slaves in the Atlantic slave trade were actually captured and sold by other Africans.....))

[delsur]

I don't understand how "whiteness scholar" is a serious thing.

I am not in critical whiteness studies and used to have a similar reaction to the term. But once you read the works of Charles W. Mills, Cedric Robinson, bell hooks, Franz Fanon, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva or many others who have written seriously about these issues, you might find that their perspectives are not as simplistic or unproductive as you imagine but rather important considerations toward a more equitable society. 

Ok, I'll take a look. If you had to choose one of these scholars, which one would you recommend? Is it possible that they pre-date the whole critical race theory movement? I remember Franz Fanon as not being a recent scholar. I'm completely unfamiliar with the others.

Yes, you are right. Fanon predates critical race and critical whiteness studies but it seems that his work is foundational to these fields. I would try Charles W. Mills' The Racial Contract. He's a philosopher. For a more recent take, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva.

[Wahoo Redux]

Part of the problems with these sorts of high-toned polemics, at least for me, is that I have the feeling that I am being blamed for things which happened before I was born or things that other people do that I do not.

I am not a bigot.  I hate bigots.  Why am I being lumped in with them.

It's part of the problem with reparations, too.  And with a great deal of the commentary about rape or office harassment. 

We can only use words to police those people who already care and are willing to listen.  Only the choir will listen to Glanton preach, and she may just turn them off, rightly or wrongly.  She did me.

Even more problematic, Glanton's opinions will not impress the people who think 'it's all being blown out of proportion,' 'it's no big deal,' or who implicitly, whether they mean to or not, justify the murder of Floyd---and this means you Mahagonny.

Fine, Floyd was stoned, he maybe passed off a counterfeit bill (which, BTW, happens all the time by people who do not know they are carrying fake money), maybe he even got lippy or started to fight---none of that matters when four police who are paid to protect and serve suffocate the man as he begs for his life. 

Why do you keep bringing up the fact that Floyd was a *minor* criminal at best?  He was trying to change.

The dude might have gotten sober, found God, got a college degree someday, become the member of society he wished to be---that is just as likely as a career in minor crime.  Quit defining him by what he did in the past.  We will never know what he might have become, good or bad, so don't pretend you do either.

Quit ragging on the man.  He's a murder victim, by cops no less, and that's what is important.

You may even be enacting what Glanton is talking about.

[Treehugger]

I don't understand how "whiteness scholar" is a serious thing.

I am not in critical whiteness studies and used to have a similar reaction to the term. But once you read the works of Charles W. Mills, Cedric Robinson, bell hooks, Franz Fanon, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva or many others who have written seriously about these issues, you might find that their perspectives are not as simplistic or unproductive as you imagine but rather important considerations toward a more equitable society. 

Ok, I'll take a look. If you had to choose one of these scholars, which one would you recommend? Is it possible that they pre-date the whole critical race theory movement? I remember Franz Fanon as not being a recent scholar. I'm completely unfamiliar with the others.

Yes, you are right. Fanon predates critical race and critical whiteness studies but it seems that his work is foundational to these fields. I would try Charles W. Mills' The Racial Contract. He's a philosopher. For a more recent take, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva.

I just looked at a summary of Charles W. Mills work and it seems that he makes an argument that the social contract theorized by Locke and others purports to be universal, but in reality is a whites-only social contract. Moreover, this is not some kind of oversight, but is inherent to the theory.

This argument is familiar to me from my past life in academia (I specialized in 18th century studies) and I remember rejecting it for some very good reasons ... which, alas, I don't remember in detail since it has now been almost a decade since I last did any real research (too busy enjoying the blissful and well-rested life of a non-academic).

Still, I will try to get hold of a copy and see if he does indeed rehearse this common argument or if he is indeed getting at something different and more compelling.

[evil_physics_witchcraft]

Fine, Floyd was stoned, he maybe passed off a counterfeit bill (which, BTW, happens all the time by people who do not know they are carrying fake money), maybe he even got lippy or started to fight---none of that matters when four police who are paid to protect and serve suffocate the man as he begs for his life. 

This. The force used was disproportionate to the crime that he was accused of committing. Do cops typically restrain people, who allegedly commit these crimes, in this manner?

[mahagonny]

Part of the problems with these sorts of high-toned polemics, at least for me, is that I have the feeling that I am being blamed for things which happened before I was born or things that other people do that I do not.

I am not a bigot.  I hate bigots.  Why am I being lumped in with them.

It's part of the problem with reparations, too.  And with a great deal of the commentary about rape or office harassment. 

We can only use words to police those people who already care and are willing to listen.  Only the choir will listen to Glanton preach, and she may just turn them off, rightly or wrongly.  She did me.

Even more problematic, Glanton's opinions will not impress the people who think 'it's all being blown out of proportion,' 'it's no big deal,' or who implicitly, whether they mean to or not, justify the murder of Floyd---and this means you Mahagonny.

You're wrong about that. I do care.

One thing I hate about the way Blanton writes is I suspect this is the kind of thing that drives swing voters away for the democratic voting and into the Trump camp. If we are all racists anyway, why shouldn't we seek the company of the party that doesn't rub it in?
And I worry about four more years of this man. As long as the boorish persona of a Donald Trump is one of the dynamics, we are living on borrowed time.
She's not doing academia any favors either, as far as your mission of getting more funding for humanities fields.
Once again: I am not uncomfortable around black people. No one has any business making these obnoxious claims. The people who are going to vote for Trump can sit back and laugh -- the progressives are standing around in a circular firing squad!

[Wahoo Redux]

You're wrong about that. I do care.

One thing I hate about the way Blanton writes is I suspect this is the kind of thing that drives swing voters away for the democratic voting and into the Trump camp.

I know you care.  You seem like a very good person, so don't sound like a boorish Trumpette.

And yes, I agree.  Glanton turns off a lot of the people who are actually her allies.  I suspect it must be so frustrating when one's life is overshadowed by racism, real or perceived, and one feels powerless to stop it that one just explodes like that.  There's a very famous poem about that very thing.

[Wahoo Redux]

Along with Charles W. Mills' The Racial Contract, this article by Robin DiAngelo might give you some perspective on the author's intentions.

https://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/viewFile/249/116

I take this quote regarding the definition of racism from DiAngelo (p. 56):

Although mainstream definitions of racism are typically some variation of individual "race prejudice", which anyone of any race can have, Whiteness scholars define racism as encompassing economic, political, social, and cultural structures, actions, and beliefs that systematize and perpetuate an unequal distribution of privileges, resources and power between white people and people of color (Hilliard, 1992). This unequal distribution benefits whites and disadvantages people of color overall and as a group. Racism is not fluid in the U.S.; it does not flow back and forth, one day benefiting whites and another day (or even era) benefiting people of color. The direction of power between whites and people of color is his- toric, traditional, normalized, and deeply embedded in the fabric of U.S. society (Mills, 1999; Feagin, 2006).

I'm hoping someone can explain this essay a little better.  One of the things we teach freshmen writers is to avoid blanket-statements and to always back up your assertions with specific, objective examples----paraphrase, quotes, and citations.  It doesn't always take on the first try and we grade them down; I always give the option of a rewrite.

So I get to this, just one claim in a series of claims very much in this vein:

[W]hites are taught to see their interests and perspectives as universal, they are also taught to value the individual and to see themselves as individuals rather than as part of a racially socialized group. Individualism erases history and hides the ways in which wealth has been distributed and accumulated
over generations to benefit whites today.

Doesn't sound like the world I know----particularly academia----and doesn't sound particularly accurate.

[marshwiggle]

[W]hites are taught to see their interests and perspectives as universal, they are also taught to value the individual and to see themselves as individuals rather than as part of a racially socialized group. Individualism erases history and hides the ways in which wealth has been distributed and accumulated
over generations to benefit whites today.

Doesn't sound like the world I know----particularly academia----and doesn't sound particularly accurate.

That is a very weird quote, and it seems logically inconsistent. If whites value individuality above all, then their systems can't be set up to disadvantage specific groups of people (or to adavantage their own group either). If the systems are set up to maintain inequality, then people of all groups should have equal ability (or *inability) to change their station.

(*in which case "white privilege" can't be a thing; there'd only be "privilege privilege" or "wealth privilege", which is hardly surprising.)

[mahagonny]

That is a very weird quote, and it seems logically inconsistent. If whites value individuality above all, then their systems can't be set up to disadvantage specific groups of people (or to adavantage their own group either). If the systems are set up to maintain inequality, then people of all groups should have equal ability (or *inability) to change their station.

(*in which case "white privilege" can't be a thing; there'd only be "privilege privilege" or "wealth privilege", which is hardly surprising.)

Studies have shown that people who have wealthy parents have more opportunities as children. For example, Miles Davis attended Juilliard Conservatory.

[writingprof]

I am not in critical whiteness studies and used to have a similar reaction to the term. But once you read the works of Charles W. Mills, Cedric Robinson, bell hooks, Franz Fanon, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva or many others who have written seriously about these issues, you might find that their perspectives are not as simplistic or unproductive as you imagine but rather important considerations toward a more equitable society. 

Delsur, you mentioned these authors in five different posts yesterday, according to your posting history.  We get it.

[Stockmann]

Along with Charles W. Mills' The Racial Contract, this article by Robin DiAngelo might give you some perspective on the author's intentions.

https://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/viewFile/249/116

I take this quote regarding the definition of racism from DiAngelo (p. 56):

Although mainstream definitions of racism are typically some variation of individual "race prejudice", which anyone of any race can have, Whiteness scholars define racism as encompassing economic, political, social, and cultural structures, actions, and beliefs that systematize and perpetuate an unequal distribution of privileges, resources and power between white people and people of color (Hilliard, 1992). This unequal distribution benefits whites and disadvantages people of color overall and as a group. Racism is not fluid in the U.S.; it does not flow back and forth, one day benefiting whites and another day (or even era) benefiting people of color. The direction of power between whites and people of color is his- toric, traditional, normalized, and deeply embedded in the fabric of U.S. society (Mills, 1999; Feagin, 2006).

Translation: Only racism giving white people an advantage at the expense of non-whites counts. Let's re-define "racism" in a way such that bigotry between non-white groups, or directed against white folks, does not count.

[pgher]

Along with Charles W. Mills' The Racial Contract, this article by Robin DiAngelo might give you some perspective on the author's intentions.

https://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/viewFile/249/116

I take this quote regarding the definition of racism from DiAngelo (p. 56):

Although mainstream definitions of racism are typically some variation of individual "race prejudice", which anyone of any race can have, Whiteness scholars define racism as encompassing economic, political, social, and cultural structures, actions, and beliefs that systematize and perpetuate an unequal distribution of privileges, resources and power between white people and people of color (Hilliard, 1992). This unequal distribution benefits whites and disadvantages people of color overall and as a group. Racism is not fluid in the U.S.; it does not flow back and forth, one day benefiting whites and another day (or even era) benefiting people of color. The direction of power between whites and people of color is his- toric, traditional, normalized, and deeply embedded in the fabric of U.S. society (Mills, 1999; Feagin, 2006).

Translation: Only racism giving white people an advantage at the expense of non-whites counts. Let's re-define "racism" in a way such that bigotry between non-white groups, or directed against white folks, does not count.

Here's a more concise definition: Racism is prejudice plus power. That is, prejudice is judging people on some outward observable feature like race. It becomes an "ism" when it is coupled with the power to do something about your pre-judgments.

[mahagonny]

Along with Charles W. Mills' The Racial Contract, this article by Robin DiAngelo might give you some perspective on the author's intentions.

https://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/viewFile/249/116

I take this quote regarding the definition of racism from DiAngelo (p. 56):

Although mainstream definitions of racism are typically some variation of individual "race prejudice", which anyone of any race can have, Whiteness scholars define racism as encompassing economic, political, social, and cultural structures, actions, and beliefs that systematize and perpetuate an unequal distribution of privileges, resources and power between white people and people of color (Hilliard, 1992). This unequal distribution benefits whites and disadvantages people of color overall and as a group. Racism is not fluid in the U.S.; it does not flow back and forth, one day benefiting whites and another day (or even era) benefiting people of color. The direction of power between whites and people of color is his- toric, traditional, normalized, and deeply embedded in the fabric of U.S. society (Mills, 1999; Feagin, 2006).

Translation: Only racism giving white people an advantage at the expense of non-whites counts. Let's re-define "racism" in a way such that bigotry between non-white groups, or directed against white folks, does not count.

Here's a more concise definition: Racism is prejudice plus power. That is, prejudice is judging people on some outward observable feature like race. It becomes an "ism" when it is coupled with the power to do something about your pre-judgments.

But anyone, however outwardly powerless, can accuse people of stuff, and lately, many do, loudly. And frequently in gangs. Of course, there are others who can't help it. Racism is a big gravy train of publishing, tenure, adjunct exploitation, awards, etc. The more racism you find, the better your gravy train.